JUDGMENT
1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the appellant for possession of certain lands described in the schedule annexed to the plaint as:
1100 bighas of nakdi jote situate in Mauza Dildarpur Mal, Tauzi No. 4395, and Mauza Dildarpur Taufir, T.N. 52, Thana Nathnagar, District Bhagalpur, included within the following boundaries.
2. Then follow the boundaries, not of the demised lands but of the mauza within which the demised lands are situate.
3. The learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit on a variety of grounds. In my opinion the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge is right and must be affirmed.
4. It is unnecessary to deal with all the grounds made in the memorandum of appeal. It is sufficient to say that the plaintiff’s suit is clearly barred by limitation. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that if the plaintiff was ever in possession of the disputed lands, he was clearly dispossessed on the 7th of March, 1917. The suit was instituted on the 3rd of January, 1920. The plaintiff’s case is that he was dispossessed by the defendants first party acting in collusion with the defendants second party. It may be stated that the defendants first party are the proprietors of the mauza in question; the defendants second party are the lessees under the defendants first party; and the plaintiff’s case is that on the expiry of the lease, in favour of the defendants second party, he obtained a hukumnama from the proprietors allowing him to cultivate 1100 bighas of land within the mauza. Clearly then the case in the plaint is one of dispossession by the landlords; and to such a suit Article 3, Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act applies. Mr. Varma, on behalf of the appellant, argues before us that his client is not a raiyat and, therefore, Article 3 has no application to the suit; but the hukumnama upon which he relies shows that he is a raiyat. The critical words in that document are as follows:
I permit you under this parwana to cultivate the said lands–boundaries whereof are given below–for this year.
5. It is contended before us that there is evidence that the plaintiff settled tenants upon the land. That may be so; but the test is not the use which the tenant has made of the land but the purpose for which the land is leased. Clearly under the hukumnama the land was let to the plaintiff to enable him to cultivate it. That being so, Article 3. Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act clearly applies.
6. It is unnecessary to go into the other points raised in the appeal, because, in our opinion, the learned Subordinate Judge was right in dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation.
7. The appeal is dismissed with costs. There will be two sets of costs payable to the defendants first party and the defendants second party.